See Becker's take on some of the modern players versus players from past eras.

"You have to say he is the most successful player we have seen, but how can you decide for sure that he is the best ever? Comparing generations is tough, especially in tennis, even though Roger ticks many boxes as the greatest ever.

"Federer has 17 grand slams, the most ever. He has the most weeks at world No.1, which is an impressive record and clearly he has been an incredible player for many, many years. His level of consistency is maybe his most impressive quality.

"However, would he have beaten McEnroe when he was at his very best in the 1984 Wimbledon final using a very different type of racket to the one he has now? I doubt it.

"Would he have beaten Bjorn Borg at his very best when he was dominating at the French Open or Wimbledon? Again, I doubt it, but that is not to belittle Federer's achievements for one moment.

"The big difference is the racket technology these days. I started with a wooden racket and you simply could not do some of the things guys like Federer and Nadal have done in recent years using that type of equipment. It would not have been possible. So they would have had to adapt their styles.

Of course, if there had been open fields, then we don't know how the amateur players would have responded to playing in the same field as the professionals. They might have been inspired, and that would have changed things.

What we've done above is take the years as they actually happened, i.e. when the top professional players were better, and predict the winners as it stood.

Click to expand...

Mustard, you have ignored the actual results for the major venues, where Hoad led Gonzales 6 to 3.
Further, the "amateurs" would not have existed, and would have matured sooner, so I think that Gonzales would have faced a mature Hoad from 1956. But don't let me spoil your fun.
Dream on!

The key word is arguably. I don't necessarily believe it but some have argued it in the past if I recall correctly. But 1952 is an arguable year. He won the US Pro Claycourt Champs, the Canadian Pro Champs, the US Pro over Gonzalez.

My point to Kiki was that Segura was not a journeyman as Kiki has written in the past. I don't necessarily believe Segura was the best in either year. The statement was to make a point.

Click to expand...

Segura was tough on clay in the early fifties, another reason why it is doubtful that either Kramer or Gonzales could have won a calendar grand slam. Add to the great clay players of the era Drobny, Patty, and this makes it all the more difficult.
Of course in the late fifties, you get Trabert (from 1953, when he matured), Rosewall (1953 champion at RG), Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli, and others.
Sorry, I don't see Kramer or Gonzales winning the GS.

No, not at all.
As we saw earlier, Hoad had 13 to 9 edge ON GRASS against Gonzales in 1958 and 1959, peak years for both, and three of the four majors in a hypothetical open tennis would have been on grass, the other on clay, where Hoad had a much better record than Gonzales. So I do not agree that Gonzales would be favoured.
Consider this. At the grand slam venues, Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Forest Hills, and Kooyong, Hoad's record against Gonzales all-time is 6 wins and 3 losses. So I think that Hoad has to ranked ahead in the majors.
Most of Gonzales "major" wins were indoors. Minor majors.

Click to expand...

Hello Dreamer, You come to a 6:3 edge of Hoad against Gonzalez at majors. Why? Because you rate Forest Hills (doubtful) and even Kooyong(!) as pro majors and because you consider their 1967 Wimbledon match which was played when both players were over the hill. The latter is totally irrelevant for their 1950s strength.

Segura was tough on clay in the early fifties, another reason why it is doubtful that either Kramer or Gonzales could have won a calendar grand slam. Add to the great clay players of the era Drobny, Patty, and this makes it all the more difficult.
Of course in the late fifties, you get Trabert (from 1953, when he matured), Rosewall (1953 champion at RG), Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli, and others.
Sorry, I don't see Kramer or Gonzales winning the GS.

Click to expand...

Dan, Davidson and Pietrangeli are irrevant for the early 1950s when Kramer and Gonzalez could have made the GS.

Gonzalez was a great claycourter. He proved it with his 1959 Toronto win and with wins over Laver.

Hello Dreamer, You come to a 6:3 edge of Hoad against Gonzalez at majors. Why? Because you rate Forest Hills (doubtful) and even Kooyong(!) as pro majors and because you consider their 1967 Wimbledon match which was played when both players were over the hill. The latter is not reasonable for their 1950s strength.

Click to expand...

No, because Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and Kooyong is where OPEN MAJORS would be played in the fifties.

Dan, Davidson and Pietrangeli are irrevant for the early 1950s when Kramer and Gonzalez could have made the GS.

Gonzalez was a great claycourter. He proved it with his 1959 Toronto win and with wins over Laver.

Click to expand...

Yes, he was good on clay. But the fields in the fifties were too tough on clay for him and Kramer to win the big one at RG.
Just think. Drobny, Patty, Segura, Trabert (from 1953), Rosewall (from 1953), Hoad (from 1953, when he beat Rosewall and Bromwich at the Australian Hardcourt), Pietrangeli, all winning at RG, except Segura, who beat Gonzales on clay in the 1952 Cleveland final in five sets.
Gonzales and Kramer did not play enough on clay to compete. Gonzales lost a hth series on clay in South America against Trabert in 1956.
These are the cold, hard realities.

Yes, he was good on clay. But the fields in the fifties were too tough on clay for him and Kramer to win the big one at RG.
Just think. Drobny, Patty, Segura, Trabert (from 1953), Rosewall (from 1953), Hoad (from 1953, when he beat Rosewall and Bromwich at the Australian Hardcourt), Pietrangeli, all winning at RG, except Segura, who beat Gonzales on clay in the 1952 Cleveland final in five sets.
Gonzales and Kramer did not play enough on clay to compete. Gonzales lost a hth series on clay in South America against Trabert in 1956.
These are the cold, hard realities.

Click to expand...

Dan, your arguments are too cold and too hard for me.

I never heard that the 1952 Cleveland final was played on clay.

It is reported that Gonzalez won a claycourt tour over Segura.

You mix oranges with cold herrings. Pietrangeli was great at the end of the 1950s, not at the begin.

After all the lessons you have got in this forum, you should finally accept that the pros were stronger than the amateurs, even on clay! Look at Ayala in 1961. He was one of the strongest amateurs that year but lost to 40 years old Segura at his pro debut.

Kooyong pro was never a pro major. Wimbledon 1967 result does not count for our 1950s discussion. That's as clear as water from high mountains...

Click to expand...

No, but the best measure we have of possible GS results in an open game is hth at the GS venues, which we do have; 6 to 3 for Hoad over Gonzales.
If you want peak years only, 1958-59, the score is 5 to 2 for Hoad (2 to 2 at Kooyong, 2 to 0 at Forest Hills, 1 to 0 at Roland Garros).

You mix oranges with cold herrings. Pietrangeli was great at the end of the 1950s, not at the begin.

After all the lessons you have got in this forum, you should finally accept that the pros were stronger than the amateurs, even on clay! Look at Ayala in 1961. He was one of the strongest amateurs that year but lost to 40 years old Segura at his pro debut.

Click to expand...

I read in several places that the 1952 Cleveland final was on clay (NY Times, for one).
Yes, Pietrangeli was great about 1956 to 1964 at RG, but we are looking at Gonzales getting a possible GS during that period as well.
Of course the pros were stronger in the fifties, but we are considering the possible results in an open game from about 1946 on, when even Drobny and Patty are pros.

Dan, Only you went through this. We need the overall balance on clay including the years when Rosewall dominated Hoad clearly (1958 on clay, 1961 to 1966 generally).

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we do not know the surface of many of the small European events of the 1960's. I had to remove some Rosewall wins from 1963 and 1964 because at Cannes it appears the surface was not clay, but indoor. Likewise, the Swiss tournaments. Perhaps the Italian.

No, but the best measure we have of possible GS results in an open game is hth at the GS venues, which we do have; 6 to 3 for Hoad over Gonzales.
If you want peak years only, 1958-59, the score is 5 to 2 for Hoad (2 to 2 at Kooyong, 2 to 0 at Forest Hills, 1 to 0 at Roland Garros).

Click to expand...

Dan, I must correct you: Kooyong was NOT always the venue of Australian Championships. Till 1971 the venues changed every year (Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide).

And, as always, you omit the US Pro in Cleveland because Hoad lost twice to Gonzalez there. That's biased account of history!

I read in several places that the 1952 Cleveland final was on clay (NY Times, for one).
Yes, Pietrangeli was great about 1956 to 1964 at RG, but we are looking at Gonzales getting a possible GS during that period as well.
Of course the pros were stronger in the fifties, but we are considering the possible results in an open game from about 1946 on, when even Drobny and Patty are pros.

Unfortunately, we do not know the surface of many of the small European events of the 1960's. I had to remove some Rosewall wins from 1963 and 1964 because at Cannes it appears the surface was not clay, but indoor. Likewise, the Swiss tournaments. Perhaps the Italian.

No, but the best measure we have of possible GS results in an open game is hth at the GS venues, which we do have; 6 to 3 for Hoad over Gonzales.
If you want peak years only, 1958-59, the score is 5 to 2 for Hoad (2 to 2 at Kooyong, 2 to 0 at Forest Hills, 1 to 0 at Roland Garros).

Click to expand...

Dan, you have 5:2 for Hoad, I have 2:1 for Gonzalez (2:0 at US Pro, 0:1 French Pro)...

Not realistic in 1954 or 1955. By that time, Trabert and Rosewall and Hoad were hot on clay, hotter than Gonzales would ever be on clay. Gonzales would have to be ranked about fifth on clay that year.
When you rate someone for a slam, you shouldn't claim that they are favoured when they have only an outside chance to win the RG.

Dan, you have 5:2 for Hoad, I have 2:1 for Gonzalez (2:0 at US Pro, 0:1 French Pro)...

Click to expand...

The US Open was never held in the Cleveland Arena, that is the point.
It was held at Forest Hills.
And it was played on grass, where Hoad had a 14 to 10 lifetime edge on Gonzales.
The "US Pro"? About as much weight as the "British Pro" or "Australian Pro".
A big title with no substance.

Kooyong is acknowledged as the pre-eminent Australian venue for tennis.
No, the US Pro is not minor because of that. Because it was a minor event, not a major in any way.

Click to expand...

Dan, I doubt that you will ever become a serious poster. Firstly you said that Kooyong would be the venue of an open major. Now, after I have disproved you (the venues of A. Champ.s have changed between 4 Aussie cities) you give us a new rabbit off your hat: Kooyong is acknowledged as the pre-eminent Australian venue for tennis. I doubt that this is undisputed. You just could say that NOW Melbourne is the main city of Australian tennis.

You are unique among the tennis experts (and I do say you are an expert) that the US Pro in the 1950s was a minor event...

Not realistic in 1954 or 1955. By that time, Trabert and Rosewall and Hoad were hot on clay, hotter than Gonzales would ever be on clay. Gonzales would have to be ranked about fifth on clay that year.
When you rate someone for a slam, you shouldn't claim that they are favoured when they have only an outside chance to win the RG.

He was not hot on clay. He lost to Segura in the 1952 Cleveland final on clay in five sets, and lost to Trabert in the 1956 RG final, and lost a clay TOUR to Trabert the same year. His hotness didn't give him an RG win against Hoad or Rosewall either, where he lost to both.
That's your idea of hot?

The US Open was never held in the Cleveland Arena, that is the point.
It was held at Forest Hills.
And it was played on grass, where Hoad had a 14 to 10 lifetime edge on Gonzales.
The "US Pro"? About as much weight as the "British Pro" or "Australian Pro".
A big title with no substance.

Click to expand...

"The US Open was never held in the Cleveland Arena". What do you want to tell us? The French Open was never played in the Coubertin hall. Was the Coubertin French Pro therefore not a pro major???

He was not hot on clay. He lost to Segura in the 1952 Cleveland final on clay in five sets, and lost to Trabert in the 1956 RG final, and lost a clay TOUR to Trabert the same year. His hotness didn't give him an RG win against Hoad or Rosewall either, where he lost to both.
That's your idea of hot?

I even am not sure if the 1964 Cannes indoor tournament was not on clay.

For instance I do know that Rosewall beat Trabert in the 1959 Vienna INDOOR matches on CLAY.

USA defeated Austria in the 1990 Davis Cup encounter in a soccer stadium on CLAY.

Click to expand...

No, but the pros looked for cheapest locales, that would mean indoor.
The Cannes was indoor.
Look at 1961. Here we have the Scandinavian Pro INDOOR. Is Scandinavia in Europe?
The "Milan Pro", with Gonzales and Cooper in the final. Sounds like indoor.
The Austrian Pro INDOOR, with Gonzales and MacKay in the final, MacKay beating Rosewall in the semifinal. Sounds like not clay.
The Inter-Country Pro Challenge in Turin, with the usual indoor guys coming through. Sounds like indoor.
Etc. etc.
We need some hard evidence to show that a clay venue was rented (these cost more to rent than a cold, claustrophobic gym or arena).
It still looks like 7 to 2 for Hoad over Rosewall on clay, in recognized major tournaments.

The indoor clay court venue in Cleveland was at the Staking Club. That was the 1950 US Pro event, when Segura beat Kovacs in the final. Segura's 1951 US Pro title was won at Forest Hills on grass, and Segura's 1952 US Pro title was won in Lakewood, Cleveland, on indoor carpet. Segura won 3 US Pro titles on 3 different surfaces, like Segura would coach Connors to at the US Open in the 1970s.

No, but the pros looked for cheapest locales, that would mean indoor.
The Cannes was indoor.
Look at 1961. Here we have the Scandinavian Pro INDOOR. Is Scandinavia in Europe?
The "Milan Pro", with Gonzales and Cooper in the final. Sounds like indoor.
The Austrian Pro INDOOR, with Gonzales and MacKay in the final, MacKay beating Rosewall in the semifinal. Sounds like not clay.
The Inter-Country Pro Challenge in Turin, with the usual indoor guys coming through. Sounds like indoor.
Etc. etc.
We need some hard evidence to show that a clay venue was rented (these cost more to rent than a cold, claustrophobic gym or arena).
It still looks like 7 to 2 for Hoad over Rosewall on clay, in recognized major tournaments.

Click to expand...

Dan, I accept some of your points. Generally in summer months in Continental Europe the surface was usually clay, not in winter months.

You again have omitted the 1958 4:1 clay balance of Rosewall against Hoad (Perrier Cup). This was not a minor event!

1959 Rome (GP) was maybe played on clay. Rosewall d Hoad 5-7,6-4,6-1

The same year in GP at Vienna Rosewall beat Hoad on clay 6-3,6-1.

In the same event, by the way, Rosewall beat Trabert 3-6,6-0,6-2, that meaning a strong revenge for Trabert's clear win at the French Pro...

Just because a player wins the world tour does not automatically make you number one. Gonzales won every world tour played between 1954 and 1961, but that does not mean he was necessarily number one every year. Other play namely tournaments count as well. I rate sedgman as number 1 in 1958 and Rosewall as number one in 1961. The same is true in 1964. All active play counts towards world rankings not just the activity on the world tour. In 1964 19 tournaments made up the world tour but in all play there were 31 tournaments plus numerous one night stands. On the world tour Rosewall won 7 tournaments and Laver 6. But on overall play Laver won 11 tornaments and Rosewall 10. That's point why the world tour should be ignored because it does not cover all play. The world tour also failed to give extra points to the 3 pro majors. The world tour is not representative of overall play which showed that Laver had an edge in tournaments won, won 2 majors to one for rosewall and had huge 15-4 edge in their head to head results. Laver's win loss percentage was also superior at 74.8% to Rosewall's 69.5%.

I am very confident that the world tour consisted of 19 tournaments. I have added up Rosewall's 78 points, Laver's 70 points and Hoad's 29 points from these tournaments. These tournaments are all the events with 8 or more players except the Port Elizabeth tournament. That gives 18 events. The 19th event is the 4 man golden Racquet at Wembley where Gonzales and and hoad earned extra points.

You have excellent points but we also must take into consideration the rules and how the players valued things during their time. To give an example, let us say that in 1979 player X won the Australian and player Y won Wimbledon. The rest of the year they had an equal record. Well by today's standards it is even but by the standards of 1979 it's not close, Wimbledon is by FAR a bigger tournament. I would venture to say that the Australian was below several other tournaments aside from majors in 1979.

If you look at 1960 for example Rosewall won the French Pro and Wembley. That's two of three majors and Olmedo won the US Pro. Pancho Gonzalez did not win a major that year but he very well had a great right to be called World Champion because he crushed Rosewall on a multi player tour along with Segura and Olmedo winning an incredible 49 of 57 matches!! Gonzalez's main focus were the tours and it is definitely true that these tours were MORE important than any major to the top pro at the time. Whoever wins it is considered the World Champion and it put money on Gonzalez's wallet. Lose the tour and he was no longer World Champion and a has been. There is no ifs ands or buts about it. The tours were BIGGER than a major.

So the same thing applies for 1964, by the standards of that time and that tour Rosewall was number one. Now in this case it's so close you can give an excellent argument for Laver as World Champion but I have no problems with calling Rosewall co-number one with Laver. You cannot just apply the standards of today to this.

By this logic Federer is the GOAT easily despite the fact guys like Tilden were more dominant in their respective times but didn't play the majors because of the travel problems among other things. Laver, Gonzalez, Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Hoad, Budge, Nusslein and Trabert couldn't play the majors for a good portion of their careers. Do you penalize them for not winning as many majors as Roy Emerson because all in my opinion were superior to him? By applying the standards of today you can make an argument Emerson is the third best player ever and that would be wrong.

Good points and discussion here. Indeed we have the problem of applying todays standards. On the other hand, the standards of the pro tour were not always that clear for the pros themselves. Especially in transition years the pros leaned towards holding on the old king, in a way that a boxing champion had to be dethroned, even if he didn't defend his title. Dempsey for instance was the world champ in the 20s without even boxing for more than 3 years.
So Kramer was seen as the world pro champ until 1953 inclusive, although he played only sporadically 1951-1953, and was in my estimation overhauled by Gonzalez or Sedgman, if you consider the full seasons of tennis. Rosewall was imo the true pro Nr. 1 since 1961, but in that year most people still thought of Gonzalez as the real champ. In years like 1959 the pro ranking was a real mess, with all kinds of promoters and players giving ranking lists, which heavily differed from each other. Sometimes the pros didn't seem to know, what the reigning standard was. Since McCauley' book we have at least a solid statistical basis for reconsideration. We do this also in open years like 1975 or 1978, when the computer system was in its infancy. McCauley himself follows the old system of favoring the older champ as explained above - in his paragraph titles, but in the text he makes modifications.

Click to expand...

Above is a discussion in the Alan Trengove on Rod Laver thread. I thought it would be interesting to quote some of the posts and put them in this thread.

Essentially the discussion was about the changing value on what is important in tennis accomplishments during a tennis year and how it varies depending on the year or decade. For example the Australian while always technically a major was not really considering that important for a while in the seventies and eighties. Many top players skipped the tournament.

One thing that has been not discussed is the head to head tours the top pros use to play for the World Championships. These were not technically tournaments but whoever won them was considered to be World Champion and it was really MORE IMPORTANT than any major. This adds to the resume of the great Pancho Gonzalez in that he won more of these tours than anyone in history. Most of them for the World title.

Gonzalez defeated on tour greats like Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Gimeno, Cooper, Anderson. Some of them were beaten on several tours. You combine this with all his Pro Majors and his tournaments won and it is arguably a record without parallel.

Do I personally think Gonzalez had the greatest record in the history of tennis? I think he's in the mix with greats like Laver, Rosewall, Tilden and Borg among others. But the tour record is incredible.

Above is a discussion in the Alan Trengove on Rod Laver thread. I thought it would be interesting to quote some of the posts and put them in this thread.

Essentially the discussion was about the changing value on what is important in tennis accomplishments during a tennis year and how it varies depending on the year or decade. For example the Australian while always technically a major was not really considering that important for a while in the seventies and eighties. Many top players skipped the tournament.

One thing that has been not discussed is the head to head tours the top pros use to play for the World Championships. These were not technically tournaments but whoever won them was considered to be World Champion and it was really MORE IMPORTANT than any major. This adds to the resume of the great Pancho Gonzalez in that he won more of these tours than anyone in history. Most of them for the World title.

Gonzalez defeated on tour greats like Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Gimeno, Cooper, Anderson. Some of them were beaten on several tours. You combine this with all his Pro Majors and his tournaments won and it is arguably a record without parallel.

Do I personally think Gonzalez had the greatest record in the history of tennis? I think he's in the mix with greats like Laver, Rosewall, Tilden and Borg among others. But the tour record is incredible.

Click to expand...

pc1, I agree that the big world tours of Pancho Gonzalez and others were more important that the pro majors.

Gonzalez also beat Sedgman in the 1954 tour thus beating all strong players from 1954 to 1961.